Jump to content

Donald Trump 2018

TheFlyingBoat

By TheFlyingBoat
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

wildcat09

wildcat09 29348

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

I'd like someone on the right to explain how giving more power to the executive branch of the federal government by allowing him to hamstringing the states' criminal justice systems is in any way conservative.

The bedrock principle of American conservatism is that laws are for the little people. This is perfectly in line with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 44.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    3593

  • retread

    1324

  • Brisketexan

    1195

  • jimmyjazz

    1186

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

M12BH
M12BH

SInce y'all seem to be my clearinghouse for all things political, let me tell a story.  A couple of them, actually.  Three, if you want to be specific. When I was 14 I went with a family frien

ConferenceRoom
ConferenceRoom
brown water
brown water

Slocum’s Razor

Judge Roybeanbag

Judge Roybeanbag 11819

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, UTDD said:

Gamble is potentially a big case in that the Supreme Court could hold that double jeopardy applies to state governments because they are not separate sovereigns under the law.  (this is currently an exception to double jeopardy under another case from I think about 60-70 years ago)  I think there are pros and cons for this in that one could argue that a state should not prosecute someone for the same crime that for example has already been convicted under federal law.  Some also argue that there are few federal and state law overlaps and that having no separate sovereign exception would have a fairly low impact overall.  Also keep in mind some states already have a law barring the state from putting on trial a person for the same crime that has already been convicted on the federal level.  On the other hand, in theory this could also mean that if someone receives a pardon from a federal conviction, this could bar states from prosecuting because they had already received a conviction.  This might be relevant in the context of presidential pardons in particular.   

I was wondering about this.  If Mueller has sealed indictments or could bring charges against people who have not been charged, and those potential charges overlap with a state, could he not just hold onto them and let the the states go forward with their charges first?  Seems that way the double-jeopardy issue would go away, or at least be postponed, and if they were convicted on state charges without having been convicted on federal charges, they could not be pardoned.  Along those same lines, would the Gamble concept apply to different charges related to the same crime?  Like federal tax evasion vs. state tax evasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89630

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It probably ran through her mind.  "You finally had your chance to ask a question and you walked out."

“President Trump, there are people claiming that you aren’t as wealthy as you claim, and that you won’t release your financial records because you’re a coward, and your lawyers and family control you and won’t let you release them, showing the world how wealthy you actually are.  How do you respond?  Are you too much of a coward to release your records?”

Edited by atomheartbevo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzrock

Buzzrock 14903

Posted
Posted
Nah, I would have stated that "I want that comment to hang in the air for a moment." And have uncomfortable silence for a few seconds, then ask my question. Point out what an idiot he is in a way he cannot really control. 


That’s not what reporters do
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzrock

Buzzrock 14903

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

In my hypothetical, would she not be reporting on his statement live? Pointing it out and letting others think what they want?

It's my position that journalists have to be dispassionate and resist editorializing in its many forms. Pundits can do whatever they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brandywine

Brandywine 1316

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Pancho Negro said:

 

Obama would have been crucified by the right with a comment like that. He’s getting away with murder and they’re letting him while the people watch and laugh. Such disrespect for the office.

Edited by Brandywine
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Js1 said:

I would have said I respectfully withdraw my question and sat down. Or turned around and left. 

You don't have to sit there and be insulted like that.

Her "I'm sorry?" was pretty good on the spot reaction.  There was no mistaking the implication.  She just called the President an ass hole.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29902

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Her "I'm sorry?" was pretty good on the spot reaction.  There was no mistaking the implication.  She just called the President an ass hole.

I agree. She forces him to either repeat the insult or skulk away from it. President Bonespurs skulks and asks for the proceedings to move along. He looks like a cowardly jackass. It's a shame that such a person is so widely loved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patrick Bateman

Patrick Bateman 3911

Posted
Posted
Quote

Using data from the American National Election Studies, we investigated the relationship between cognitive ability and attitudes toward and actual voting for presidential candidates in the 2012 and 2016 U.S. presidential elections (i.e., Romney, Obama, Trump, and Clinton). Isolating this relationship from competing relationships, results showed that verbal ability was a significant negative predictor of support and voting for Trump (but not Romney) and a positive predictor of support and voting for Obama and Clinton. By comparing within and across the election years, our analyses revealed the nature of support for Trump, including that support for Trump was better predicted by lower verbal ability than education or income. In general, these results suggest that the 2016 U.S. presidential election had less to do with party affiliation, income, or education and more to do with basic cognitive ability.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted

Awesome.  I was asking for a study like this before.  We always say education is a great (negative) predictor for being a Trump supporter.  I've wondered if that isn't an overly insulting way to look at it:  maybe being blue collar is more tightly correlated, and of course blue collar and lack of higher education are correlated.  These people aren't dumb, they are just believers that Trump helps blue collar people. 

That study looks like it answers my question -- it's not overly insulting.  It's just that dumb people like Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Awesome.  I was asking for a study like this before.  We always say education is a great (negative) predictor for being a Trump supporter.  I've wondered if that isn't an overly insulting way to look at it:  maybe being blue collar is more tightly correlated, and of course blue collar and lack of higher education are correlated.  These people aren't dumb, they are just believers that Trump helps blue collar people. 

That study looks like it answers my question -- it's not overly insulting.  It's just that dumb people like Trump.

I haven't come across a Trump supporter yet who wasn't stupid, foolish, or a bad person.   Those are pretty much the categories. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brown water

brown water 3777

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Not even close to the same thing. Only a total douchebag would compare the two.

I'm a douchebag. No argument there.  

But I wasn't comparing the two.  I was observing Trump's background re- service makes him a poor messenger for the point.  I usually try to separate the message from the messenger but his ubiquitous bullshit makes it far harder than normal to isolate him from issues and their relative merits.  

That said, neither of avoiding military service nor embellishing extent of service is a positive qualification for holding office.  So I'll be true to douchebag form and offer up a similarity though not an equivalence.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul Wesley

Paul Wesley 3278

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I haven't come across a Trump supporter yet who wasn't stupid, foolish, or a bad person.   Those are pretty much the categories. 

You need another category to account for the evangelicals, a great many of whom are solid, stand-up people in every way, with the caveat that they will torture their belief system and their moral compass in unbelievable ways rather than admit that their Republican president is a a decidedly un-Christ-like and immoral piece of shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

You need another category to account for the evangelicals, a great many of whom are solid, stand-up people in every way, with the caveat that they will torture their belief system and their moral compass in unbelievable ways rather than admit that their Republican president is a a decidedly un-Christ-like and immoral piece of shit.

They fall within my "foolish" category.  My in-laws are like that, and they were foolish.   And they regret their vote now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28775

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Awesome.  I was asking for a study like this before.  We always say education is a great (negative) predictor for being a Trump supporter.  I've wondered if that isn't an overly insulting way to look at it:  maybe being blue collar is more tightly correlated, and of course blue collar and lack of higher education are correlated.  These people aren't dumb, they are just believers that Trump helps blue collar people. 

That study looks like it answers my question -- it's not overly insulting.  It's just that dumb people like Trump.

I barely dipped my toe in CR for my first few years after signing up at the old site. I learned who the morons were from interacting with them on the other boards. It's uncanny what a correlation there is between them and support for Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzrock

Buzzrock 14903

Posted
Posted
Awesome.  I was asking for a study like this before.  We always say education is a great (negative) predictor for being a Trump supporter.  I've wondered if that isn't an overly insulting way to look at it:  maybe being blue collar is more tightly correlated, and of course blue collar and lack of higher education are correlated.  These people aren't dumb, they are just believers that Trump helps blue collar people. 
That study looks like it answers my question -- it's not overly insulting.  It's just that dumb people like Trump.


Is it wrong to discriminate against dumb people? Is it their fault?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28766

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Is this how we got in trouble in the 30's?  I kid..... I kid.... I think.

If you are referring to the embracing of Nationalism, Protectionism and the fostering of ethnic division then the answer is yes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...